Games and E-Learning: The Research Imperative For those of us in the generation that saw the emergence of the personal computer and video game console systems, we are no strangers to electronic games. At some point in our educational careers, we probably encountered games used in the classroom to teach such topics as math facts or spelling. Since that time, electronic educational games have become more sophisticated, moving from two-dimensional pixilated images to robust three-dimensional environments. The educational theory behind the games has also shifted from the learning of rote fact to providing the opportunity to practice problem-solving and experiential learning. Users have the opportunity to do, explore, try, and fail without fear of real consequences, enabling them to reflect and learn. Even the term “game” has taken on new guises, “virtual worlds”, “serious games”, and “immersive learning simulations” are just a few of the terms used to refer to these new gaming platforms. While the rationale for including games in the educational milieu offers logical arguments, the burden of proof through empirical evidence persists. What’s in a Name? In bringing today’s games to the educational forefront, advocates are playing the name game in an effort to attain legitimacy. There is a stigma attached to the term “games” (Wexler, et al., 2007). Oblinger (2008) questions whether we would view games differently if we explored them from the perspectives of the users and excluded the word “games” entirely. In a 2007 E-Learning Guild report (Wexler, et al., 2007) in which more than 1000 Guild members were surveyed, 52.8% noted the term game to be problematic, with 70.73% advocating “immersive learning” as a substitute for “serious game”, a term used to describe some games used in education and training. What’s in a Game? Despite the nomenclature, the underlying assumptions on which electronic educational games are built are more firmly defined. Games include goals, rules, competition, challenges, a context, and some level of fantasy (Charsky, 2008). They contain aspects requiring visual literacy (e.g., color, lighting, and shapes) that guide the user through the game (Stoerger, 2008). Content can be presented in multiple formats, and assessments and feedback can be delivered in real time (Sealund, 2010). Games for educational use should adapt to the players and involve social networks (Oblinger, 2008). Why Games? The evolution of electronic games from the traditional “skill and drill” format designed to reinforce the learning of rote facts now allows for more robust activity. Games technology now enables games to be used for more higher-level thinking skills, rather than memorization of factual information (Charsky, 2008). Games have the potential for experiential learning, where users can learn in the simulated context enabling them to learn in a way that is meaningful to them (Wideman, et al., 2007). This forces users to adopt a specific set of values and view of the world within a specific knowledge domain (Oblinger, 2008). Constructivist learning is one of the benefits of learning using games (Charsky, 2008). Clark (2006) lists ten pedagogic reasons for using games, including learner-centricity, motivation, personalization, incremental learning, contextualization, the ability to have multiple media, safe failure, immediate feedback, practice and reinforcement, and collaboration. Virtual worlds and games enable activities that would be too costly, difficult, and dangerous to conduct in the real world (Kluge & Riley, 2008). In creating this space for “safe failure”, games actually contribute to student learning. Games provide consequences and rewards for trial-and-error, decision making, and risk taking, removing the emphasis from correct answers. Learners not only learn how to apply their strategies but also get to test new tactics and to understand the potential consequences of their actions enabling them to figure out successful solutions (Charsky). Learners in the immersive learning environment can test their assumptions and try things out. This, paired with reflection, builds expert experience (Wideman; Oblinger). The environment for experimentation provides motivation and engagement. Because users achieve information in multiple ways simultaneously, the game assists them in cognitive processing (Sealund, 2010). The ability of the user to participate in a multimedia-enhanced environment with quasi-realistic experiences, the adoption of an online persona, engagement in a fantasy or narrative, and the rewards immerses the learner in gameplay (Wideman, et al., 2007). For digital natives who are used to getting information quickly from multiple sources, multitasking, interacting and networking, processing video and auditory content before text, and achieving instant gratification and rewards, this platform may be appealing (Sealund, 2010). Gaming is also social. Users may become communities of practice in the sharing of information not only in the game but also about the game (Wideman, et al., 2007). In these communities, the diverse backgrounds and experience enable the sharing of ideas to identify problems and seek solutions (Oblinger, 2008). The Challenge of Games For all of their potential, presenting educational games Charsky (2008) argues that Providing games with educational content and appealing to student motivation is not enough to foster learning; the concerted efforts of game designers and instructional designers is needed to make gaming truly effective in education (Charsky, 2008). Oblinger (2008) queries considerations for if games are to be implemented in educational settings, including the decision to involve instructional designers, the use of games as a core component or supplement to the curriculum, and the ability to provide the facilities and support for the project. Games, such as virtual worlds, pose challenges in terms of the hardware and connection requirements to access them and the inability for them to be accessible to people with disabilities (Kluge & Riley, 2008). The Need for Research Given the potential benefits, the pursuit of empirical evidence provides one more challenge to electronic educational gaming. Examination of the effectiveness of types of content best suited for games (Charsky, 2008), understanding of cognitive processes used in gaming, and the outcomes beyond the research context (Wideman, et al., 2007) is lacking. Much of the current research consists of self-reporting from instructors and students, and qualitative studies provide sample sizes that are not generalizable (Wideman, et al., 2007). While the number of descriptive studies greatly outweighs the number of experimental studies, Hew (Hew & Cheung, 2010) speculates that descriptive study outcomes will yield variables that can inform experimental studies in educational gaming. A sample of studies provides evidence of some of the methodological issues existing in games research. A qualitative study examining student collaboration in virtual worlds consisted of a small sample (N=6) most of whom were already users of virtual worlds and gathered their perceptions regarding collaboration (Gütl, Chang, Kopeinik, & Williams, 2009). Another study examined the use of software that could assist in games research. Rather than examine the educational aspects of the game, the software emphasized more the technical and usability issues involved in the game. Lastly, a study designed to assess the ability of learners to compare learning acquisition of knowledge through traditional educational methodology with knowledge acquisition through gaming (Jestice & Kahai, 2010) possessed multiple methodological flaws. First, the research emphasized the use of electronic education games for providing the ability for constructivist learning, which emphasizes active learning and problem-solving. The study, however, measured student’s acquisition of declarative knowledge or fact. Second, the studies results may have further been confounded because students in the traditional educational condition were learning using video-recorded lectures, a passive means of learning when compared with the active engagement of virtual worlds. Conclusion Electronic educational gaming offers the promise of new learning methodologies. Active engagement, the ability to collaborate, and opportunities for students to safely experiment and test assumptions to better understand their effect in the world form compelling reasons to continue to explore games, simulations, and virtual worlds for use in the educational context. However, more work needs to be done to understand educational gaming’s role in teaching and learning. Further research in understanding effectiveness when compared with traditional means will surely determine whether games will form the basis of a new educational paradigm or simply provide one more tool in motivating students and enhancing instruction. References Charsky, D. (2008). From edutainment to serious games: A change in the use of game characteristics. Games and Culture, 5(2), 177-198. Clark, D. (2006). Games and e-learning: Epic. Gütl, C., Chang, V., Kopeinik, S., & Williams, R. (2009). 3D virtual worlds as a tool for collaborative learning settings in geographically dispersed environments. Hew, K., & Cheung, W. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33-55. Jestice, R., & Kahai, S. (2010). The effectiveness of virtual worlds in education: An empirical study. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, 512. Kluge, S., & Riley, L. (2008). Teaching in virtual worlds: Opportunities and challenges. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, 5, 127-135. Oblinger, D. (2008). Games and learning. Educause Quarterly, 3, 5-7. Sealund, B. (2010). The power of virtual learning environments. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 21(4), 9-12. Stoerger, S. (2008). Virtual worlds, virtual literacy: An educational exploration. Knowledge Quest: Journal of the American Association of School Librarians, 36(3), 50-56. Wexler, S., Aldrich, C., Johannigman, J., Oehlert, M., Quinn, C., & Van Barneveld, A. (2007). Immersive learning simulations. Wideman, H., Owston, R., Brown, C., Kushniruk, A., Ho, F., & Pitts, K. (2007). Unpacking the potential of educational gaming: A new tool for gaming research. Simulation & gaming, 38(1), 10.
For those of us in the generation that saw the emergence of the personal computer and video game console systems, we are no strangers to electronic games. At some point in our educational careers, we probably encountered games used in the classroom to teach such topics as math facts or spelling. Since that time, electronic educational games have become more sophisticated, moving from two-dimensional pixilated images to robust three-dimensional environments. The educational theory behind the games has also shifted from the learning of rote fact to providing the opportunity to practice problem-solving and experiential learning. Users have the opportunity to do, explore, try, and fail without fear of real consequences, enabling them to reflect and learn. Even the term “game” has taken on new guises, “virtual worlds”, “serious games”, and “immersive learning simulations” are just a few of the terms used to refer to these new gaming platforms. While the rationale for including games in the educational milieu offers logical arguments, the burden of proof through empirical evidence persists.
What’s in a Name?
In bringing today’s games to the educational forefront, advocates are playing the name game in an effort to attain legitimacy. There is a stigma attached to the term “games” (Wexler, et al., 2007). Oblinger (2008) questions whether we would view games differently if we explored them from the perspectives of the users and excluded the word “games” entirely. In a 2007 E-Learning Guild report (Wexler, et al., 2007) in which more than 1000 Guild members were surveyed, 52.8% noted the term game to be problematic, with 70.73% advocating “immersive learning” as a substitute for “serious game”, a term used to describe some games used in education and training.
What’s in a Game?
Despite the nomenclature, the underlying assumptions on which electronic educational games are built are more firmly defined. Games include goals, rules, competition, challenges, a context, and some level of fantasy (Charsky, 2008). They contain aspects requiring visual literacy (e.g., color, lighting, and shapes) that guide the user through the game (Stoerger, 2008). Content can be presented in multiple formats, and assessments and feedback can be delivered in real time (Sealund, 2010). Games for educational use should adapt to the players and involve social networks (Oblinger, 2008).
Why Games?
The evolution of electronic games from the traditional “skill and drill” format designed to reinforce the learning of rote facts now allows for more robust activity. Games technology now enables games to be used for more higher-level thinking skills, rather than memorization of factual information (Charsky, 2008). Games have the potential for experiential learning, where users can learn in the simulated context enabling them to learn in a way that is meaningful to them (Wideman, et al., 2007). This forces users to adopt a specific set of values and view of the world within a specific knowledge domain (Oblinger, 2008). Constructivist learning is one of the benefits of learning using games (Charsky, 2008). Clark (2006) lists ten pedagogic reasons for using games, including learner-centricity, motivation, personalization, incremental learning, contextualization, the ability to have multiple media, safe failure, immediate feedback, practice and reinforcement, and collaboration. Virtual worlds and games enable activities that would be too costly, difficult, and dangerous to conduct in the real world (Kluge & Riley, 2008).
In creating this space for “safe failure”, games actually contribute to student learning. Games provide consequences and rewards for trial-and-error, decision making, and risk taking, removing the emphasis from correct answers. Learners not only learn how to apply their strategies but also get to test new tactics and to understand the potential consequences of their actions enabling them to figure out successful solutions (Charsky). Learners in the immersive learning environment can test their assumptions and try things out. This, paired with reflection, builds expert experience (Wideman; Oblinger).
The environment for experimentation provides motivation and engagement. Because users achieve information in multiple ways simultaneously, the game assists them in cognitive processing (Sealund, 2010). The ability of the user to participate in a multimedia-enhanced environment with quasi-realistic experiences, the adoption of an online persona, engagement in a fantasy or narrative, and the rewards immerses the learner in gameplay (Wideman, et al., 2007). For digital natives who are used to getting information quickly from multiple sources, multitasking, interacting and networking, processing video and auditory content before text, and achieving instant gratification and rewards, this platform may be appealing (Sealund, 2010).
Gaming is also social. Users may become communities of practice in the sharing of information not only in the game but also about the game (Wideman, et al., 2007). In these communities, the diverse backgrounds and experience enable the sharing of ideas to identify problems and seek solutions (Oblinger, 2008).
The Challenge of Games
For all of their potential, presenting educational games Charsky (2008) argues that Providing games with educational content and appealing to student motivation is not enough to foster learning; the concerted efforts of game designers and instructional designers is needed to make gaming truly effective in education (Charsky, 2008). Oblinger (2008) queries considerations for if games are to be implemented in educational settings, including the decision to involve instructional designers, the use of games as a core component or supplement to the curriculum, and the ability to provide the facilities and support for the project. Games, such as virtual worlds, pose challenges in terms of the hardware and connection requirements to access them and the inability for them to be accessible to people with disabilities (Kluge & Riley, 2008).
The Need for Research
Given the potential benefits, the pursuit of empirical evidence provides one more challenge to electronic educational gaming. Examination of the effectiveness of types of content best suited for games (Charsky, 2008), understanding of cognitive processes used in gaming, and the outcomes beyond the research context (Wideman, et al., 2007) is lacking. Much of the current research consists of self-reporting from instructors and students, and qualitative studies provide sample sizes that are not generalizable (Wideman, et al., 2007). While the number of descriptive studies greatly outweighs the number of experimental studies, Hew (Hew & Cheung, 2010) speculates that descriptive study outcomes will yield variables that can inform experimental studies in educational gaming.
A sample of studies provides evidence of some of the methodological issues existing in games research. A qualitative study examining student collaboration in virtual worlds consisted of a small sample (N=6) most of whom were already users of virtual worlds and gathered their perceptions regarding collaboration (Gütl, Chang, Kopeinik, & Williams, 2009). Another study examined the use of software that could assist in games research. Rather than examine the educational aspects of the game, the software emphasized more the technical and usability issues involved in the game. Lastly, a study designed to assess the ability of learners to compare learning acquisition of knowledge through traditional educational methodology with knowledge acquisition through gaming (Jestice & Kahai, 2010) possessed multiple methodological flaws. First, the research emphasized the use of electronic education games for providing the ability for constructivist learning, which emphasizes active learning and problem-solving. The study, however, measured student’s acquisition of declarative knowledge or fact. Second, the studies results may have further been confounded because students in the traditional educational condition were learning using video-recorded lectures, a passive means of learning when compared with the active engagement of virtual worlds.
Conclusion
Electronic educational gaming offers the promise of new learning methodologies. Active engagement, the ability to collaborate, and opportunities for students to safely experiment and test assumptions to better understand their effect in the world form compelling reasons to continue to explore games, simulations, and virtual worlds for use in the educational context. However, more work needs to be done to understand educational gaming’s role in teaching and learning. Further research in understanding effectiveness when compared with traditional means will surely determine whether games will form the basis of a new educational paradigm or simply provide one more tool in motivating students and enhancing instruction.
References
Charsky, D. (2008). From edutainment to serious games: A change in the use of game characteristics. Games and Culture, 5(2), 177-198.
Clark, D. (2006). Games and e-learning: Epic.
Gütl, C., Chang, V., Kopeinik, S., & Williams, R. (2009). 3D virtual worlds as a tool for collaborative learning settings in geographically dispersed environments.
Hew, K., & Cheung, W. (2010). Use of three-dimensional (3-D) immersive virtual worlds in K-12 and higher education settings: A review of the research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 33-55.
Jestice, R., & Kahai, S. (2010). The effectiveness of virtual worlds in education: An empirical study. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings, 512.
Kluge, S., & Riley, L. (2008). Teaching in virtual worlds: Opportunities and challenges. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, 5, 127-135.
Oblinger, D. (2008). Games and learning. Educause Quarterly, 3, 5-7.
Sealund, B. (2010). The power of virtual learning environments. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 21(4), 9-12.
Stoerger, S. (2008). Virtual worlds, virtual literacy: An educational exploration. Knowledge Quest: Journal of the American Association of School Librarians, 36(3), 50-56.
Wexler, S., Aldrich, C., Johannigman, J., Oehlert, M., Quinn, C., & Van Barneveld, A. (2007). Immersive learning simulations.
Wideman, H., Owston, R., Brown, C., Kushniruk, A., Ho, F., & Pitts, K. (2007). Unpacking the potential of educational gaming: A new tool for gaming research. Simulation & gaming, 38(1), 10.